Similar problems nationwide: recently, a NY-man removed his anklet in 60 seconds.

A February 2013 investigation by the Los Angeles Timesshowed that “thousands” of high-risk sex offenders and parolees were routinely removing or disabling their GPS tracking devices. And these individuals have little risk of being caught because California's jails are apparently too full to hold them.

On Saturday, the Timesrevealed significant portions of previously-redacted documents from state reports on two rival GPS tracking device manufacturers (3M and Satellite Tracking of People [STOP], based in Houston). Last year, California judges concealed significant sections of these after state officials argued publicizing such information could inform potential violators and "erode public trust" in the system. The newly released information shows just how problematic the tracking anklets made by 3M were.

California began this statewide monitoring program in 2008, splitting the device contracts between 3M and STOP. More than a year ago, California began testing the monitors currently in place on the nearly 8,000 convicted-but-now-released sex offenders, parolees, and felons within the state. As the Timesreported regarding the 3M devices, “Corrections officials found the devices used in half the state were so inaccurate and unreliable that the public was ‘in imminent danger.’” State officials immediately ordered a mass replacement of all 3M ankle monitors in use, opting instead for the STOP products.

"Inundated with defects"

The Times elaborated on the 3M device issues:

One agent who participated in the tests, Denise LeBard, said in a court statement that 3M's ankle monitors were "inundated with defects."

Among the problems: 3M's devices failed to collect a GPS location every minute, phone in that information every 10 minutes and forward a text message to a parole agent if a problem was detected. Without revealing how well STOP performed, the state said 3M collected only 45 percent of the possible GPS points.

Testers also were able to fool 3M's GPS devices by wrapping monitors in foil, something that triggers an alarm on STOP's device because it has a metal detector.

3M subsequently sued, arguing that state officials had rigged the evaluations.

"This is one agency's testing," Steve Chapin, vice president of government relations for 3M's electronic monitoring division, told the Times. "We have the most widely used system in the world. It's been proven time and time and time again to be very safe and reliable."

New York man disabled, removed GPS anklet in 60 seconds

Back in 2006, California voters approved a ballot measure to put GPS tracking “anklets” on sex offenders that would monitor them for life—joining 23 other states across the country. California’s system was activated in 2008. As with any technology, it didn’t go quite as swimmingly as its designers intended.

GPS devices aren’t just problematic in California: a recent journalistic investigation into the use of similar devices in Wisconsin also illustrated massive problems with its program. Last year, a Tennessee audit showed that more than 80 percent of alerts from GPS-monitored offenders “were not cleared or confirmed” by corrections agents.

Earlier this month, a New York man took his GPS tracking device apart, removed it, and reassembled it in 60 seconds. He later allegedly raped a 10-year-old girl and stabbed a woman in a small town in the suburbs of Syracuse, New York.

Second, as my link shows, America at the minimum is completely screwed up with regards to sensible laws for protecting teenagers from actual predators.

(Note: Not you, per se ): You like kids? You don't think there's anything perverse with making them the object of your sexual desires? You're a predator...If you aren't actually hunting, your well on your way...pretty straight forward.

Quote:

If a teen seeks out an adult for sex, as opposed to the adult seeking to take advantage of the teen, then the adult SHOULD say no, but I don't think that incarceration is the right social response.

Incarceration is a deterrent because...

Quote:

If the adult stalks teen hangouts for vulnerable teens needy for attention, or plies them with drugs, then yes, an appropriate response may well be prison.

^^ This is the next eventual step.

Quote:

At the least, instead of a sex predator status, you could extend a probationary period or "potential predator" for people with consensual interactions or questionable sexual behavior. Something that only the police and courts could see, like sealed juvenile records, so that repeat offenders might be differentiated from drunk rape accusations and giving into consensual sexual desire.

The problem with this is that then you'll have actual predators slipping through the cracks on a "technicality" that then hides there misconduct from the general public. Yea, I would like to know if that teacher's aid in my kid's kindergarten class is a "potential predator." The circumstances that landed him/her with predator status aren't important. A series of poor judgement lead to this label and typically the first poor judgement is that "barely legal" is appropriate outside an adult entertainment context.

Quote:

Many teens have sex. Mostly it's with other teens, because they've been sectioned off into a separate class. Sometimes it's not, and there's a lot of wasted lives as a result of the laws.

There's no denying teens have sex, however, its pretty straightforward. If you are unsure of age, ask for ID. It protects you...it protects them. If you know they are underage, wait or walk away until they are of appropriate age.

Edit: Quoting

Your quotes are rather confusing and messy. (Or were, when I read them, but not when I hit reply.)Wikipedia has a better breakdown of the definition, including medical definitions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PedophiliaLumping people who may be attracted to teens, a group that at least some portion of actually desires sex and is physically developed for, with "children", a group that includes everything down to babies, is an unfair grouping. There's no way the two groups are similar, and neither can sexual desire for one be considered a slippery slope to the other. Similarly, a teen approaching an adult for sex is not the same as an adult attempting to find vulnerable teens. Making the former illegal is trying to legislate socially acceptable behavior, while making the latter illegal is trying to protect the actually vulnerable. A teacher's aide that got caught having consensual sex with a 15 year old (unconnected to the school, so there would be no abuse of authority), is not someone that's at risk of attempting sexual abuse on 6 year olds, not any more than a 60 year old having sex with a 25 year old is. You may find the image unpalatable, but it's a poor basis for a life time scarlet letter.

And seriously, your counter is to ask for ID? Fake IDs? Ever hear of taking someone at their word? Do the laws protect you if you card them and they presented a fake ID? No. The only protection is if the DA is sympathetic.

Yea... about that... we're not animals...just because you are "sexually mature" does not mean you are mentally or emotionally mature to handle sex and its implications. An entry level developmental psych course will make it apparent that children do not have the same faculties of reasoning or understanding that adults do.

Your statement is deplorable.

In many nations 16 was considered a proper age for marriage for centuries. If women and men have been mentally and emotionally handling sex as a part of everyday life and its impact in matrimony during teenage years for that long, who's to say a 16-year-old today can't handle a relationship with sex?

People can be stupid and irrational at 16 or 17, but on the other hand they are as smart as they probably ever will be and more than likely ready for things such as sex. This is especially true with today's hyper-charged society.

Little issue here: they tend to label ANYONE who is on the sex offender lists (and you can get on there for pissing in a bush) as 'high risk' even when the fact is that physical assaulter and murderers are 100 times more likely than a sex offender to reoffend, by the FBI's own numbers.

So, don't automatically take the word of these people for the truth, they have a monetary impetus to lie or at least stretch the truth.

saddened by the whole "errosion of public trust". If the system is broken, our trust should be lost. Public knowledge would force them to do better. Instead they try to hide their faults which makes them look even worse. government should man up and admitt to their mistakes and fix them rather than keep the public ignrnat or lie to keep their jobs.

Thise judges that consented to this are a shame to the judiciary. If the process is easy enough, people probably would have been exploiting it anyways.

But then again there's the other side of this coin. Certain "first-world" European nations who allow an adult to have "consensual" intercourse with a fourteen year old---as long as you don't "pay" her..

Just to clarify, should you refer to Germany: the parents have the legal right to prosecute, if sexual intercourse takes place between a 14-year old and an adult (> 21 years). The court then takes a case-by-case decision, taking into consideration the actual circumstances.

Earlier this month, a New York man took his GPS tracking device apart, removed it, and reassembled it in 60 seconds. He later allegedly raped a 10-year-old girl and stabbed a woman in a small town in the suburbs of Syracuse, New York.

that guy's a total sociopath. I feel sick to my stomach for that girl. ugh.

meanwhile, you all seem to be interested in debating whether adults should be having sex with children. get a grip. this is 2013, sex isn't just about physical maturity--a grown man doesn't seek out a young girl because he believes she will produce healthy offspring. emotional maturity is a crucial component of sexual relationships and age of consent laws are aimed at protecting a child's future.

i agree. i feel sick to my stomach reading this messageboard. i stay away from slashdot and reddit to try to get away from the creepy, but they seem to infest every nook and cranny of the web.

On topic: People were only in "imminent" danger if the parolees *knew* that their device wasn't being tracked properly. If parolees were unaware of the device's limitations, then I would think they would still act as if under panoptic surveillance.

If you didn't physically harm or restrain anyone then your crime should only be punishable by fine. As for sex offenders, if no one was physically harmed or restrained you shouldn't be on any list.

So emotional harm isn't factored in? There are a myriad of emotional trauma that befall a victim or rape, lasting well into adult hood ( sometimes forever).

Your decree doesn't handle the case where a minor is coerced into a sexual act ( perhaps by the threat of harm or the threat of harm to a loved one, etc.).

I addressed threats in my second comment. Any threat of harm that qualifies as assault should be punishable by jail.

However, if the worst thing happened to you was being teased and peer pressured then jail isn't the right response, a fine is. No one should be in prison for a bag of weed/crack/coke/etc, and no one should be in jail for mutually agreed upon sex with a 14-17 year old. We have fines for that kind of stuff.

Maybe our fines should be proportional to your networth, but that's another issue.

Until they rape and/or murder a female member of YOUR family, right? Some of you are extremely short sighted.

Actually my second cousin was raped, murdered, and buried in a shallow grave less than ten years ago. I don't know that the guy who did it ever even got charged with it, though he ended up in jail forever for doing the same to someone else, which was how they caught him.

You're the short sighted one. How does a GPS help fix that? It doesn't. All it does is help us catch them... so what's the point?

If they're going to reoffend, they need to stay in jail. If they're safe, then let them go. There's no need for the GPS either way - either they're in jail, or they're safe to be let free.

That they're easier to catch when they reoffend is no comfort at all.

DarkAdmin wrote:

Being labeled a predator for life is a deterrent. If you are going to have those disgusting and abnormal predilections, be prepared to live an abnormal life for the rest of your life. However, I do think that exemptions should be made when the individuals are close in age and above 17. I think its wrong that you can have your life ruined at 19 when your girlfriend/boyfriend is 17 1/2 and consenting. Other than that...if you're an full grown adult and are interested in a minor...you should be tarred and feathered to make an example of you.

Ah, someone who has no understanding of reality. I'm sorry, but this is why people like you should not have the right to vote.

Labelling them as a predator forever is something only a retard would do. The problem is that if they can't get a job and reenter society, what happens? The answer is "they're more likely to reoffend". Who is more likely to commit a criminal offense, someone who is actually able to have a life of their own, or someone who can't own a home, can't hold a job, and is a transient?

If you answered #1, then you need to recognize that forgiveness is vital. If they're better, there's no reason to give them the label - they're just like anyone else.

If they're NOT better, then why are we releasing them in the first place?

There are people who are "sex offenders" for such "offenses" as public urination and public nudity. They aren't dangerous, and they shouldn't be labelled and tagged for life. Oh no, I saw tits! Oh no, a homeless man was peeing at the bus stop!

I really don't care.

If someone is incurable, then they need to be in custody of some sort, be it jail or some sort of mental facility or some similar supervised place. If they're curable, then once they're better, put them out for a year on probation, then cut them loose - maybe follow up on them in a non-law enforcement, more "How are you doing?" kind of way to help make sure that they're adjusting okay and to help support them from falling back into bad habits.

And incidentally - being labelled for life isn't a deterrent at all. The problem is that the sort of people that you need to worry about, they aren't thinking about the possibility of going to jail or whatever. While penalties may deter people from other activities, the truth of the matter is that people who molest children are not right in the head, and thus there is no possible "deterrent" - even if you took them out and shot them it wouldn't stop them from doing it, because they aren't behaving in a rational manner to begin with. Its not like stealing or murder, where there's some sort of risk-reward thing. The whole "labelled for life" thing is far less pertinent even to someone like rapist than going to jail - people tend to think of immediate risks, and the nebulous risk of being labelled a predator for life is far too esoteric for such people.

In any case, if it really was a deterrent, then what incentive do extant sex offenders have not to reoffend, given that you have now put them in a position where they cannot exist in society? Might as well just shoot them.

Scotts13 wrote:

(Sigh...) IMHO, which is probably not a popular one, you cannot be too drunk to consent. You consented to drinking that much; the consequences of which have been known since the dawn of civilization. If I were to voluntarily incapacitate myself, I'd take care to do it in a safe place. An environment which includes other drunken people is not such.

Consent is entirely based on:

1) Can you articulate consent.

2) Can you resist.

If you are unconscious or delirious, you cannot consent to sex, and ergo any sex that happens to you is (potentially) rape unless you consented to it beforehand. It is generally a bad idea to have sex with someone who is blackout drunk (though it is hard to tell in many cases) because they may not remember whether they gave consent, but it doesn't actually change that it isn't rape if they give consent and mean it at the time. Regretting drunken sex does not make it rape; it does make you an idiot.

If you have sex with someone who is passed out, who didn't say that you could bone them beforehand, then yes, you are committing rape - and you still might be committing rape even if they DID, because they are no longer in the state to consent.

But merely being intoxicated does not mean you cannot consent to sex, regardless of what crazy people say, because that isn't the legal standard for rape. If it is consenual, even if you're drunk, it is not rape. The only exception is if you are non-consensually intoxicated (if you are drugged, for instance), in which case it might still be rape if it is determined that they would not have consented while sober and the drugging was done to make them consent. If you intentionally get intoxicated, you are responsible for your own decisions, including whether or not you consent to sex, even if you "only had sex with them because you were drunk".

robrob wrote:

The idea of being incapacitated beyond being able to agree to something is written heavily into our laws. We have it with children, you can be too drunk to sign a contract (especially if the other party knows so).

Actually, no. Being drunk when you signed a contract generally does not change whether it was legally binding unless, again, you were drugged by someone else when you did it, or unless you were coerced into signing it. Generally speaking, "I was drunk!" is not an excuse for nullifying a contract unless something really egregious happened.

Its rather similar to being drunk and hitting someone while intoxicated - because YOU chose to diminish your capacity, you are still responsible for what you did while drunk.

"I was drunk!" is not a valid legal defense, and it isn't even a mitigating factor, unless you were intoxicated against your will.

DarkAdmin wrote:

Yea... about that... we're not animals...just because you are "sexually mature" does not mean you are mentally or emotionally mature to handle sex and its implications. An entry level developmental psych course will make it apparent that children do not have the same faculties of reasoning or understanding that adults do.

If we required people to take a test before being deemed mentally or emotionally mature enough to handle sex and its implications, I would be slightly more sympathetic to this argument.

The truth is that people bang - voluntarily - when they're quite young. The age varies, but 12 year olds do it sometimes, 13 year olds more often, and 14 year olds more often still. Is it smart? Probably not in many cases (though it is far from universally harmful). But it is reality.

Really age of consent laws are meant to prevent people from being predatory on youth, and it is a valid social concern. On the other hand, there are 16 year olds who intentionally have sex with older men, who would be, in theory, sex offenders, despite the fact that the 16 year old knows what they're doing and is consenting to it as much as an 18 year old would. The whole thing is messy because reality is not clean cut. There are 14 year olds who are ready to have sex and there are 20 year olds who aren't. And sadly, a lot of people do have sex before they are really ready for it from an emotional or mental standpoint. In fact, I would argue that most people aren't really very mature about sex in the first place, including many adults. Look at how many people cheat on their SOs, or who have problems dealing with sex in general, or other people having sex or what have you.

Its not really clean cut, regardless of what people like to pretend. But the people who are eager to have sex with 14 year olds in general are more than a little worrisome. I do understand that humans become sexually attractive in their teenage years, and that age varies to as low as 12 in some cases. Its an intrinsic part of being human. But on the other hand its pretty clear from the way that modern society works that we don't consider people below high school to really be full people from a social standpoint, and even high schoolers are sort of dubious from a societal standpoint (they're viewed as much more independent than younger kids are, and really do fall into their own category culturally).

I really don't have any answers. I think some people who try to pick up 14 year olds should go to jail, because they're obviously trying to take advantage of them. On the other hand, there are other people who are not predatory in nature and just really like someone who is "too young" (though most of these people are fairly young themselves) rather than trying to take advantage of inexperienced young people. But people like clear cut answers more than "Well, is it exploitive?" because the latter is a much more complicated question.

In set theory you might say "being too drunk to consent" belongs to the set of "being drunk", but being drunk does not imply being too drunk to consent. As Peter said, it is up to a jury to decide, based on whatever evidence is presented to them, whether the level of drunkenness meets the standard of "too drunk to consent".

(Sigh...) IMHO, which is probably not a popular one, you cannot be too drunk to consent. You consented to drinking that much; the consequences of which have been known since the dawn of civilization. If I were to voluntarily incapacitate myself, I'd take care to do it in a safe place. An environment which includes other drunken people is not such.

Any other option (how drunk is "too drunk"?) has an unworkable number of indeterminate variables.

So under that theory if you are female and drunk you are not responsible for your choices. How would that apply to driving?

When I was 14 I was having plenty of sex. Younger than average possibly, but not the youngest I know; and certainly not too young to know what I was doing. I absolutely knew what I wanted and apparently I knew how to get it. When I was 14 I was sleeping with a girl my age, and yes, we used protection. 14 year olds are capable of that kind of reasoning too.

When I was 15 I had sex with an 19 year old girl, and there is no way in hell that I would have let anyone tell me I was a victim. To this day I wholeheartedly agree with my younger self on that position, and am still friends with that girl.

When you are 14 you absolutely know what sex is and almost certainly want to have it. If you have become one of those adults who has forgotten what it's like to be a teenager then shame on you. Take time for some introspection.

Waste less time on teenagers having sex and focus on the real sex crimes. Human trafficking is still a reality, and it needs to be stopped. While you waste everyone's time wringing your hands about some 14 year old kid getting laid you trivialise and obfuscate the real heinous crimes that are happening to people today.

While Age of Consent varies, there are in most of those cases some limited exceptions. For example, in Virginia, it is not Statutory if the female involved is 15 or older, and the male is 18 or 19. HOWEVER, it is still a misdemeanor (but you aren't a sex offender). It's also not an issue in ANY state (obviously) where the couple is married. The old saying of "15 will get you 20" still applies outside that, though.

My father used to tell the tale of the night he finally proposed to my mom. He was 19, she was (still) 15 (they married 6 weeks later, and the still is because my mother's 16th birthday was 3 days after this event). My mother had nearly been raped in her own home by a drunken adult friend of her step mother's as she was waiting for my father to show up; he ripped her blouse, messed up her hair and makeup, and tore one of her stockings (1955). My father arrived for their date just as my mother came running out of the house, and my father drove her to a quiet spot to calm her down and find out what happened. My father calmed her down over the course of a couple hours while they were sitting in his car, and deciding what to do. Realize, my mom was a "Good Girl", and waited until they were married. Around about 9:30ish, all of a sudden a bright flashlight shined into the car. About 90 seconds later, my father was face down in the dirt, handcuffed, with my mother pleading with the Police Officer that her boyfriend hadn't done anything wrong, that she had been attacked at home and he'd rescued her.

When they got married some six weeks later, my father was also rescuing my mom from that environment. She was legally a "Married Infant" until she was 21 (remember, my dad was an adult at 19), with my dad being her legal guardian until then. She gave birth to my sister the day after her 21st birthday, so she was only an adult for one day before becoming a parent. And yes, my folks are still both around, and have now gotten to 57 years of marriage. Times, and laws, change, but Virginia hasn't changed THAT much. When my sister got married at 17 1/2, her husband became HER legal guardian for the 6 months until she turned 18. She at least got a year and a half of legal adulthood before she became a parent, two years later.

Of course we could always let loose the guys in the prisons that are in there for 3 strikes weed possesion. I know the companies running the prisons won't like that because those type of prisoners are low risk and they can make the most profit off them, but it makes more sense than letting out the physically dangerousones.

It is not legal to have sex with a person who doesn't consent, including someone who is unable to consent due to alcohol. Of course a man who has sex with a woman who is passed out is going to claim that he was also drunk...but that doesn't mean it's true or we have to believe it. Apparently the jury didn't.

I think the problem with this law is the language used to describe it.

Being drunk does not make a person unable to consent. Otherwise it would mean that every time two drunk people have sex they were both rape victims and rapists at the same time.

In set theory you might say "being too drunk to consent" belongs to the set of "being drunk", but being drunk does not imply being too drunk to consent. As Peter said, it is up to a jury to decide, based on whatever evidence is presented to them, whether the level of drunkenness meets the standard of "too drunk to consent".

I do know of situations were in college guys who were too drunk to consent were taken advantage by a girl. Actually multiple guys had it done to them by the same girl, on different occasions. They were pretty pissed off about it afterwards but would never think of reporting it as a rape. It is still a taboo in our society for men to report being raped.

While being drunk does not necessarily make a person unable to consent, if they (either man or woman) later regret the act they can still file a police report and hose the other person.

It is why for many a year I have multiple video cameras recording the interactions in my house, because I frequently picked up girls at the bar next to my house, had a couple cry wolf, happily handed the unedited home made porn to the authorities from multiple angles. Goes away every time.

Hey, I'm with @Engelsstaub on this one... you're comments indicate a slight bent for pedophilia. Normal people don't make abnormal statements like "there's nothing despicable about... having sex with a teen."

So...you are either ignorant, trolling, a pedophile, or a pedophile sympathizer...

Where have I heard that message before? "If you're not for this, you're... for child porn!" I find this sort of claim despicable; you should be moderated and, at the very least, be very ashamed of yourself.

I'm not sure if you're trolling, but I don't particularly care. I actually don't mind the occasional ad-hom, but you're really taking it way too far.

Felon : A crime, typically one involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more...

Someone committing a "severe crime" gets away with a GPS device hopefully (supposedly) tracking his location ? Either the "crime" wasn't really severe or ... there is something wrong with the judicial system.

Even more since it was stated that the "felon" posed an imminent threat !!!

But then again there's the other side of this coin. Certain "first-world" European nations who allow an adult to have "consensual" intercourse with a fourteen year old---as long as you don't "pay" her..

Just to clarify, should you refer to Germany: the parents have the legal right to prosecute, if sexual intercourse takes place between a 14-year old and an adult (> 21 years). The court then takes a case-by-case decision, taking into consideration the actual circumstances.

That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. (BTW: I wasn't specifically referring to Germany. I have parents and friends in DE. I'm not aware of laws like this because it's not something we really discuss for obvious reasons. ...so thanks for your input.)

Back in 2006, California voters approved a ballot measure to put GPS tracking “anklets” on sex offenders that would monitor them for life—joining 23 other states across the country.

WTF? How is that even constitutional? It's bad enough that people who pose no danger whatsoever to the public are being put on sex offender lists (e.g. a drunk person urinating in a public park; a guy running around naked on his own property), with all the restrictions that imposes. Now they have to keep this technological scarlet letter on their ankles for their entire lives? That's bullshit.

Don't bother discussing it here. You'll just get a bunch of nationalistic trolling like the previous poster who derides US law as "f'd up" while calling legalized pedophilia in a so-called civilized nation simply "weird" because of "smart people."

Oh pffffff. A low age of consent doesn't mean that all Europeans sleep around with 14 year olds. There is still the little question of socially accepted behavior. Or in other words having your dick chopped off by the father/older brother or being shunned by every single one of your friends or family. Also teenagers are normally more than able to identify an old guy trying to hook up with them as creepy and send him to hell.

In the end its a question of: "Do we want to get the law involved in this?". I prefer a "low" age limit of 14. After all everything below that is definitely evil and needs to be handled with the strength of the law. Everything above that becomes murky. Lots of children become sexually active at that age have sex with people of the same age or sometimes older ones. So if a precocious 15 year old girl has sex with a 16 year old guy its bad for the parents but normal. If he is 18 it becomes socially problematic, if he is 21 its definitely weird and if he is 30 its creepy and he should have his ass handed to him. But should it be illegal? And if yes at which age? The answer is just unclear. I prefer to think that we have very strong social protections against these kinds of things so why get the law involved? We do not have to legalize everything.

And I do not want to have this understood as being cavalier towards pedophilia. I think its the most heinous crime around and should be punished severely. But putting things like "statutory rape" into the same category is just idiotic and diminishes the crime. Keep the definition clear and punish it strictly instead of inflating the people who get caught in this life destroying net. I would prefer only to destroy the lifes of people who deserve it. And most cases of pedophilia do not happen by creepy strangers who try to chat up 16 year olds in bars. They are done by family members or friends of the family.

...Oh pffffff. A low age of consent doesn't mean that all Europeans sleep around with 14 year olds. There is still the little question of socially accepted behavior. Or in other words having your dick chopped off by the father/older brother or being shunned by every single one of your friends or family. Also teenagers are normally more than able to identify an old guy trying to hook up with them as creepy and send him to hell.

In the end its a question of: "Do we want to get the law involved in this?". I prefer a "low" age limit of 14. After all everything below that is definitely evil...

Nobody said that a low age of consent meant that all Europeans sleep around with 14 year olds.

Nobody's going to chop off someone's sexual organs for doing what is "socially unacceptable" either. ...but the law would get involved then.

I'm glad my laws "define" what is "definitely evil," as you judge it, or whatever. You said anything below 14. I disagree. So does Spain who sets it at 13. I'm glad I live in a society where, as a parent, the law has my back. Vigilante justice my foot...I'd love to see someone get away with it because of what's defined as "socially unacceptable."

See, that's the nice thing: the law is behind me and I don't care about a bunch of anonymous Ars-commenters expressing indignation over the thought that I find adults screwing legally-defined children to be despicable. If you're in the US or Canada or the UK etc. all you have is your comments posted to an internet forum. Go ahead and try it. "Pffffft!"

As Nobody42 said: in Germany the parents have the right to prosecute. What more could you ask for? Certainly not this nonsensical little scenario of vigilante justice you're on about.

...Oh pffffff. A low age of consent doesn't mean that all Europeans sleep around with 14 year olds. There is still the little question of socially accepted behavior. Or in other words having your dick chopped off by the father/older brother or being shunned by every single one of your friends or family. Also teenagers are normally more than able to identify an old guy trying to hook up with them as creepy and send him to hell.

In the end its a question of: "Do we want to get the law involved in this?". I prefer a "low" age limit of 14. After all everything below that is definitely evil...

Nobody said that a low age of consent meant that all Europeans sleep around with 14 year olds.

Nobody's going to chop off someone's sexual organs for doing what is "socially unacceptable" either. ...but the law would get involved then.

I'm glad my laws "define" what is "definitely evil" or whatever. You said anything below 14. I disagree. So does Spain who sets it at 13. I'm glad I live in a society where, as a parent, the law has my back. Vigilante justice my foot. I'd love to see someone get away with it because of what's defined as "socially unacceptable."

See, that's the nice thing: the law is behind me and I don't care about a bunch of anonymous Ars-commenters expressing indignation over the thought that I find adults screwing legally-defined children to be despicable. If you're in the US or Canada or the UK etc. all you have is your comments posted to an internet forum. Go ahead and try it. "Pffffft!"

As Nobody42 said: in Germany the parents have the right to prosecute. What more could you ask for? Certainly not this nonsensical little scenario of vigilante justice you're on about.

Where in gods name did I advocate vigilant justice. Seriously get off the drugs and don't take everything so literal. But to make if abundantly clear I do not prefer vigilant justice over laws. But in my opinion the law should stay out of the bedroom of people. And over 14 year olds are sexually active. Out of their own will. Might not be nice but that's how it is. What I said in my first paragraph is that it is awfully hard to make laws in that area because the border between acceptable and unacceptable are totally fluid. And laws are in my opinion not necessary since there are strong social rules working here. Old guys having relationships with young girls (and vice versa) are socially shunned. And yes they also have the parents to deal with. I wasn't advocating vigilantism I was just stating facts.

And I didn't understand the rest of what you were saying. It got a bit weird.

Clearly some people fervently believe in the SHAZAM! moment when someone turns 18.

One minute before their 18th birthday they are an innocent little baby, devoid of any sexuality, incapable of rational thought coherent enough to understand sex and its consequences, and only preyed upon by evil pedophiles.

One minute later, SHAZAM! they are sexy creatures - lets film some porn!

Unless they grew up in an insanely sheltered life by some fundamentalist evangelical commune, never allowed any contact with the outside world, they know about sex (and even in the commune, I'm sure most of them played a little doctor). This isn't a surprise to them.Any rational adult would make sure they know about sex, its implications, how to have safe sex, etc. before they actually have it. (FYI, that time is not the morning of their wedding).

I remember what it was like to be a pubescent boy - constantly horny and desperate for any female attention I could get. I recall all the neighborhood kids playing around with each other when I was 11 - kids experiment with each other. It happens.Yes, I do regret some of the stupid things I did as a teenager (not just sex, teenagers do stupid things), but I also regret things I've done since. When I was 28 I slept with a woman and immediately regretted it (actually only time in my life I felt 'dirty' about having had sex) - age has nothing to do with making unwise decisions.We are not innocent cherubs until we turn 18, and we cannot pass laws to eliminate any possibility of making a mistake - trying just criminalizes life as a whole.

Anyway. more to the actual topic, I strongly disagree with the sex offenders lists. Fairly innocent 'crimes' get you put on the list despite being no threat to anyone, at which point you largely lose the ability to integrate into society and thus become enough of a desperate outsider that you can become a threat to society.If you are a threat for actual harm against another, you should not be out of jail.Ankle monitors are fantastic for those who have not committed a violent crime - if someone is not a threat to others, there is no reason to keep them in prison (of course, then you have to ask why they are a criminal in the first place).

I would much rather have a 3 tiered system.1: non-violent non-predatory crimes (the questionable crimes that should be civil infractions).Pay a fine proportional to your income with some persistent minimums (garnish wages for a period of time if needed) - if no significant assets, elevate to tier 2. Possibly other restrictions depending on the crime (no driving for DUI, no handling credit card information for fraud, etc).

3: violent crimes or high risk of violence.Actual full imprisonment. Of course, I would further break this down into at least two categories, one being people who could be actual rehabilitated into contributing members of society and those who are persistent dangers to others. High quality counseling encouraged, as the goal is to rehabilitate them, not vengeance to reduce them to violent animals in cages, as is the current US justice system.

One thing about the prison system - they are supposed to be highly controlled environments, you have no control over your movement and are not there voluntarily, therefore the prison is responsible for your safety and well-being. The prison should be liable for any assaults or rape unless all reasonable precautions are made. The 'har har prison rape serves them right' view is anathema to a civilized society - rape is not part of their legal punishment.

...Where in gods name did I advocate vigilant justice. Seriously get off the drugs and don't take everything so literal. But to make if abundantly clear I do not prefer vigilant justice over laws. But in my opinion the law should stay out of the bedroom of people. And over 14 year olds are sexually active. Out of their own will. Might not be nice but that's how it is. What I said in my first paragraph is that it is awfully hard to make laws in that area because the border between acceptable and unacceptable are totally fluid. And laws are in my opinion not necessary since there are strong social rules working here. Old guys having relationships with young girls (and vice versa) are socially shunned. And yes they also have the parents to deal with. I wasn't advocating vigilantism I was just stating facts.

And I didn't understand the rest of what you were saying. It got a bit weird.

Engelsstaub wrote:

JPan wrote:

......There is still the little question of socially accepted behavior. Or in other words having your dick chopped off by the father/older brother or being shunned by every single one of your friends or family...

...that's where you advocated vigilantism. How am I not to take this literally when the only other punishment you think is suitable is social awkwardness and being shunned by friends?? You mentioned it being the business of the father or brother exacting "some" sort of justice, did you not?

It's not "awfully hard to make such laws." I just mentioned previously many countries (Canada, US, UK, Germany, etc.) who have such laws and don't see them as "fluid." That's the part you didn't want to respond to by saying "I didn't understand the rest of what you were saying because it got a little bit weird." (Instead of getting all dramatic and saying someone must be on drugs either A. try harder to understand/ask for clarification or B. don't address it or respond at all.)

Clearly some people fervently believe in the SHAZAM! moment when someone turns 18.

One minute before their 18th birthday they are an innocent little baby, devoid of any sexuality, incapable of rational thought coherent enough to understand sex and its consequences, and only preyed upon by evil pedophiles.

One minute later, SHAZAM! they are sexy creatures - lets film some porn!

Obviously this is not how anyone thinks it works, but this is what's actually possible to enforce as a law. If the law said it was illegal to sleep with "any person who is not psychologically mature enough to have sex" that would be a nightmare to enforce. Setting an arbitrary cut-off is the same thing we do for simple practical reasons when it comes to voting, driving, joining the military, drinking, etc. For some people it will be too early for all of those things, for some it will be too late, but at least there is some clarity in the system and you know what you can and cannot do.

Obviously this is not how anyone thinks it works, but this is what's actually possible to enforce as a law. If the law said it was illegal to sleep with "any person who is not psychologically mature enough to have sex" that would be a nightmare to enforce. Setting an arbitrary cut-off is the same thing we do for simple practical reasons when it comes to voting, driving, joining the military, drinking, etc. For some people it will be too early for all of those things, for some it will be too late, but at least there is some clarity in the system and you know what you can and cannot do.

It would be ridiculous to attempt a standard of 'if they are mature enough' (required psychological evaluation for a license to have sex?) - going with 'lets make natural behavior illegal out of some social conceptions held over from Victorian era views of sexuality' is likewise ridiculous.

Setting the age at 18 is absurd - some people like to infantilize everyone, but people are largely competent to make decisions about their own bodies far better than an uncaring bureaucracy. I have far more respect for the age being 14 than 18, but even then it has issues and needs significant caveats (like Romeo&Juliet clauses).

It goes back to your philosophy - do you think it better that competent people have their autonomy removed by law, criminalizing normal natural behavior, or for people who may not be able to fully ready for every situation be allowed to make mistakes? If the former, then there are an awful lot of new laws we need to pass (no credit cards until age 30, no mortgages until at least 50. Given the success of the Nigerians needing to store money in your bank account type scams, no one of any age should ever be allowed to use email). Even then, I know a few people in their mid-30s who have trouble with basic financial concepts (understanding anything from compound interest to how much they are paying in ATM fees by taking on $20 out at a time, sometimes multiple times a day). If you think bad decision-making is just restricted to sex, then I will point out that people of all ages make mistakes and have regrets - should the legal age be raised to 50 to help reduce these bad decisions?This has nothing to do with abuse - that will always be illegal (and should apply no matter what the age).

Personally, I think imprisoning people for consensual acts between those able to make rational decisions is anathema to a free society. I do not see anyone just shy of their 18th birthday as a lump of goo incapable of being self-actualized. Some people will be legally permitted to make decisions they may not be ready for, but that is the cost of a free society - big brother is not stepping in to make every decision for you.Allowing competent people to make decisions for themselves is, to me at least, a fundamental human right.In my view, you better have a damn sight better reasoning than 'well some people might not be ready yet' to take that away.

Perhaps I am wanting too much reasonableness from a society with a strong puritanical streak wanting to inflict severe life-long punishment on an 11 year old boy (youngest age of offence on a sex offenders list I am aware of). Prosecutors have even filed charges against 6 year old children for consensually playing around with each other (not sure what may have resulted from those, but several such cases exist). Exploration is normal and healthy - wanting to label a 6 year old a sexual predator for life because of that mutual exploration is not, by any stretch, reasonable.

So under that theory if you are female and drunk you are not responsible for your choices. How would that apply to driving?

No. Not sure how you get that, you're 180 degrees turned around. Male or female, you're every bit as responsible for what you do while drunk as if you were sober. The fact you chose to intoxicate yourself means anything else is on you. As to driving, if you kill someone in the car while legally intoxicated, it's usually involuntary manslaughter and IMHO should often be bumped to second degree murder.

Making it a crime to have sex with 15 year olds is OK in my eyes, but labeling those who have sex with 15 year old teenagers the same way as those who "have sex" with 6 year old children is just cruel and unreasonable. It's not nearly the same crime. "you like 15 year olds so you obviously like raping infants too lol"

Setting the age at 18 is absurd - some people like to infantilize everyone, but people are largely competent to make decisions about their own bodies far better than an uncaring bureaucracy. I have far more respect for the age being 14 than 18, but even then it has issues and needs significant caveats (like Romeo&Juliet clauses).

Most people over the age of 18 aren't really competent to make decisions either, but we consider 18 to be the minimum age to "be an adult" at which point your stupid mistakes are your own problem.

Moreover, in reality, 18 is a big deal, though the "real" big deal is actually what happens when you're 18 - you graduate from high school. People in high school are still kids. Once you're out, you're truly a young adult. Things change when you graduate.

The odds of relationships being exploitative rise dramatically the older the older partner is when you've got one of the people being a high school student. That's reality. There's no reason for a 22 year old to be banging a 14 year old. Is the rare case not exploitative? Yes. But its a prophylactic. We are trying to prevent bad things from happening to kids. And it is hard for a 14 year old to stand up to a 22 year old.

Setting the age at 18 is absurd - some people like to infantilize everyone, but people are largely competent to make decisions about their own bodies far better than an uncaring bureaucracy. I have far more respect for the age being 14 than 18, but even then it has issues and needs significant caveats (like Romeo&Juliet clauses).

Most people over the age of 18 aren't really competent to make decisions either, but we consider 18 to be the minimum age to "be an adult" at which point your stupid mistakes are your own problem.

Moreover, in reality, 18 is a big deal, though the "real" big deal is actually what happens when you're 18 - you graduate from high school. People in high school are still kids. Once you're out, you're truly a young adult. Things change when you graduate.

The odds of relationships being exploitative rise dramatically the older the older partner is when you've got one of the people being a high school student. That's reality. There's no reason for a 22 year old to be banging a 14 year old. Is the rare case not exploitative? Yes. But its a prophylactic. We are trying to prevent bad things from happening to kids. And it is hard for a 14 year old to stand up to a 22 year old.

I'm pretty sure that young people can leave home, or for that matter be kicked out, somewhat younger than that.

Details probably vary, but I believe that in N. America, this line is generally drawn at the 16 years old mark (and under special circumstances, even younger than that).